Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947

Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the... applied sciences Correction Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947 Dorota Swiatla-Wojcik Institute of Applied Radiation Chemistry, Lodz University of Technology, Zeromskiego 116, 90-924 Lodz, Poland; dorota.swiatla-wojcik@p.lodz.pl The author wishes to make the following corrections to this paper [1] due to an error in data in Table 2. The rate constants of reactions 36 and 37 in Table 2 were swapped. These values were correctly copied from reference 16 in the original paper [1], but they were swapped in the publication. The author confirms that the re-simulation using the corrected rate constants does not affect the main conclusion of the original paper [1] on the synergic effect of base and hydrogen. However, Figures 1–8, Scheme 3, Tables 2 and 3, and the relevant descriptions need to be updated. All the changes listed in this Correction were approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated. The author apologizes for any inconvenience caused. 1. Changes in Introduction There was a mistake in the original publication [1] in paragraph 4, line 7: “(Table 1) indicated by” should be changed to “(Table 2) indicated by”. 2. Changes in Section 2 Materials and Methods In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. In row 8 Citation: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. 4 11 11 column 6: “2.8710 ” should be changed to “1.3610 ”. In row 9 column 6: “1.3610 ” Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A should be changed to “2.8710 ”. The corrected Table 2 appears below. Numerical Simulation of Radiation In paragraph 5, lines 5–6, the sentence “The initial concentration for H and OH , Chemistry for Controlling the were obtained from” should be changed to “The initial concentration for H and OH , was Oxidising Environment in obtained from”. Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1. https:// doi.org/10.3390/app13010001 Received: 14 September 2022 Revised: 14 September 2022 Accepted: 18 November 2022 Published: 20 December 2022 Copyright: © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010001 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 2 of 9 Table 2. Reaction set for the radiolysis of high temperature water and rate constants k at 300 C (units 1 1 1 for 2nd and 1st order reactions are M s and s , respectively). For reactions between similar species, the value of k, not 2k, is given. No. Reaction k (300 C) No. Reaction k (300 C) +2 H O + 1 2 6 1 11 1 6.0610 30 H + HO ! H O 5.6910 e + e ! H + 2OH 2 2 2 2 aq aq 2   11 1 + 1 2 H + H ! H 1.0110 31 H O ! H + HO 2.5210 2 2 2 2   10 1  11 3 OH + OH ! H O 1.8010 32 H + O ! OH 5.6910 2 2 + H O + 2 2 11 1  1 4 4.3910 33 OH ! H + O 2.5210 e + H ! H + OH aq 2 11 1 11 5 e + OH ! OH 4.6910 34 H O + OH ! HO + H O 1.3610 2 2 2 aq 2  10 1 8 6 H + OH ! H O 5.5210 35 HO + H O ! H O + OH 1.7610 2 2 2 2   11 1   11 7 e + H O ! OH + OH 2.7310 36 HO + OH ! O + H O 1.3610 aq 2 2 2 2 2 2   11 1   4 8 e + O ! O 2.4910 37 O + H O ! HO + OH 2.8710 2 2 aq 2 2 2 +2 H O 1 2 11 1 +   11 9 1.6110 38 H + e ! H 7.1610 e + O ! H O + 2OH aq 2 2 aq 3 + H O 11 1  +  5 H ! H + e 10 2.1510 39 1.6510 e + O ! HO + OH aq aq 2 2 2   11 2   10 11 e + HO ! HO 2.4610 40 H + OH ! e + H O 2.2610 aq 2 aq 2 2 2   9 2   3 H + H O ! OH + H O e + H O ! H + OH 12 1.2910 41 1.1610 2 2 2 2 aq 2   11 4   4 13 H + O ! HO 1.1110 42 H + H O ! OH + H 3.0410 2 2 2 3 11 2  9 14 H + HO ! H O 3.3110 43 OH + H ! H + H O 1.1510 2 2 2 2 1    11 1   10 15 H + HO ! 2 OH 2.1410 44 OH + HO ! H O + O 8.1810 2 2 2 11 3  11 16 H + O ! HO 2.7310 45 OH + HO ! HO + OH 1.2410 2 2 2 2   8 1   10 17 OH + H O ! HO + H O 4.3510 46 O + H O ! OH + HO 8.1810 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2   11 1   10 18 OH + O ! O + OH 2.0710 47 O + HO ! OH + O 8.7610 2 2 2 2  10 1 9 19 OH + HO ! O + H O 7.4810 48 O + H ! OH + H 1.5510 2 2 2 2   7 1   10 20 HO + HO ! H O + O 4.5110 49 O + O ! O 3.2610 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3   8 1   7 21 HO + O ! HO + O 4.3110 50 O ! O + O 1.9910 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3   11 22 H O ! 0.5O + H O 3.7810 51 O + OH ! HO 2.9810 2 2 2 2 1  2 3   10 23 H O ! 2 OH 3.7810 52 e + HO ! O + OH 5.7910 2 2 aq + H O 1 + 12 5 2 8 24 H + OH ! H O 1.1310 53 7.1210 2 e + HO ! OH + 2 OH aq 1 2 3 8 25 H O ! H + OH 6.5210 54 O + HO ! O + HO 4.3110 2 2 2 2 2 1  +  11 3  2 26 O + H ! HO 5.6910 55 H O ! O + H O 1.0210 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 3 10 27 HO ! O + H 1.5510 56 O + O ! O 8.2810 + H O 1 11 6 2 11 28 OH + OH ! O + H O 1.3610 57 1.9910 2 e + e ! e + H + OH aq aq aq 1   8 O + H O ! OH + OH 29 1.7610 1 2 Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [16]. Average of the values reported in refs. [15,16]. 3 4 Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [15]. Temperature dependence reported in ref. [22]. 5  6 Value from ref. [25] extrapolated to 300 C. Temperature dependence reported from ref. [26]. 3. Changes in Section 3 Results In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The correct Figure 1 appears below: In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. The correct Figure 2 appears below: Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 9 • • • • 2 11 2 10 e +HO →HO H +OH →e +H O 11 2.46·10 40 2.26·10 • • • • 2 9 2 3 12 H +H O →OH+H O 1.29·10 41 e +H O→H +OH 1.16·10 • • • 2 11 4 4 H +H O→ OH+H 13 H +O →HO 1.11·10 42 3.04·10 • • • • 3 11 2 9 14 H +HO →H O 3.31·10 43 OH+ H →H +H O 1.15·10 • • • • 1 11 1 10 15 H +HO →2 OH 2.14·10 44 OH+HO →H O+ O 8.18·10 • • • 2 11 3 11 16 H +O →HO 2.73·10 45 OH+HO →HO +OH 1.24·10 • • • 2 8 1 • 10 17 OH+ H O →HO +H O 4.35·10 46 O +H O →OH +HO 8.18·10 • • • 2 11 1 10 18 OH+ O →O +OH 2.07·10 47 8.76·10 O +HO →OH +O • • • 2 10 1 9 19 OH+ HO →O +H O 7.48·10 48 O +H →OH +H 1.55·10 • • • 2 7 1 • 10 20 HO +HO →H O +O 4.51·10 49 O +O →O 3.26·10 • • • • 3 8 1 7 21 HO +O →HO +O 4.31·10 50 O →O +O 1.99·10 1 −2 3 11 22 H O →0.5O +H O 3.78·10 51 O +OH→ HO 2.98·10 • • • 1 −2 3 10 23 H O →2 OH 3.78·10 52 e +HO →O +OH 5.79·10 1 12 5 • 8 24 H +OH →H O 1.13·10 53 7.12·10 e +HO ⎯⎯ OH+ 2 OH • • 1 −2 3 8 25 H O→H +OH 6.52·10 54 O +HO →O +HO 4.31·10 • • • 1 11 3 −2 26 O +H →HO 5.69·10 55 H O →O +H O 1.02·10 • • • • 1 5 3 10 27 HO →O +H 1.55·10 56 O +O →O 8.28·10 1 11 6 11 • • • • 28 OH+OH →O +H O 1.36·10 57 1.99·10 e +e ⎯⎯ e +H +OH • • 1 8 29 O +H O→ OH+ OH 1.76·10 1 2 Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [16]. Average of the values reported in refs. 3 4 [15,16]. Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [15]. Temperature dependence reported 5 6 in ref. [22]. Value from ref. [25] extrapolated to 300 °C. Temperature dependence reported from ref. [26]. + – In paragraph 5, lines 5–6, the sentence “The initial concentration for H and OH , + – were obtained from” should be changed to “The initial concentration for H and OH , was obtained from”. 3. Changes in Section 3 Results In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The correct Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 3 of 9 Figure 1 appears below: (a) (b) Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 9 Figure 1. Concentration profiles of the radiolytic species calculated for neutral deaerated water ex- Figure 1. Concentration profiles of the radiolytic species calculated for neutral deaerated water −1 posed to (a) gamma and (b) fast neutron radiation at 300 °C and dose rate 1 kGy·s . exposed to (a) gamma and (b) fast neutron radiation at 300 C and dose rate 1 kGys . In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. The correct Figure 2 appears below: Figure 2. The simulated steady state concentrations of oxidants formed in neutral water vs. fraction Figure 2. The simulated steady state concentrations of oxidants formed in neutral water vs. fraction −1 of ofγ -rays ( -raysf( gf) i)nin the mi the mixed xed gamma-fas gamma-fast t neutron rad neutron radiation: iation: so solid lid lilines nes indi indicate cate do dose se rate of rate of 1 k 1 kGy Gy·ss ; ; −11 dashed + symbol indicates 10 kGy·s . dashed + symbol indicates 10 kGys . 4. Changes in Section 3.1.1 Neutral Water 4. Changes in Section 3.1.1 Neutral Water In paragraph 3 line 3–5, the sentence “leads to a decline in pH by 0.0023 at the radiation In paragraph 3 line 3–5, the sentence “leads to a decline in pH by 0.0023 at the radia- 1 1 dose of 1 kGys and by 0.0039 at 10 kGys , whereas exposure to rays leads to a decline −1 −1 tion dose of 1 kGy·s and by 0.0039 at 10 kGy·s , whereas exposure to γ rays leads to a 1 1 in pH by 0.0013 at 1 kGys and by 0.0028 at 10 kGys ” should be changed to “leads to −1 −1 decline in pH by 0.0013 at 1 kGy·s and by 0.0028 at 10 kGy·s ” should be changed to 1 1 a decline in pH by 0.0037 at the radiation dose of 1 kGys and by 0.0063 at 10 kGys , −1 “leads to a decline in pH by 0.0037 at the radiation dose of 1 kGy·s and by 0.0063 at 10 whereas exposure to rays leads to a decline in pH by 0.0020 at 1 kGys and by 0.0041 at −1 −1 kGy·s , whereas exposure to γ rays leads to a decline in pH by 0.0020 at 1 kGy·s and by 10 kGys ”. −1 0.0041 at 10 kGy·s ”. 5. Changes in Section 3.1.2 Alkaline Aqueous Solution 5. Changes in Section 3.1.2 Alkaline Aqueous Solution In paragraph 1, the sentences “In comparison with neutral water, radiolysis of alkaline In paragraph 1, the sentences “In comparison with neutral water, radiolysis of alka- solution results in lower steady-state concentrations of H O , O , HO , H , H , and O 2 2 2 2 2 2 • • line solution results in lower steady-state concent  rations of H2O2, O2, HO2 , H2, H , and but in the higher concentrations of e , OH, and HO . Figure 3 presents how the aq 2 •− •− • – O2 but in the higher concentrations of eaq , OH, and HO2 . Figure 3 presents how the addition of base alters the steady-state concentrations of O , H O , OH, and HO in 2 2 2 2 • • addition of base alters the steady-state concentrations of O2, H2O2, OH, and HO2 in the the mixed gamma–neutron radiolysis. Simulations were performed for fraction of rays mixed gamma–neutron radiolysis.” should be changed to “Figure 3 presents how the ad- varying from f = 0 (high LET neutron radiolysis) to f = 1 (low-LET gamma radiolysis).” g g • • dition of base alters the steady state concentrations of O2, H2O2, OH and HO2 in the should be changed to “Figure 3 presents how the addition of base alters the steady state mixed gamma-neutron radiolysis. Simulations have been performed for fraction of γ-rays concentrations of O , H O , OH and HO in the mixed gamma-neutron radiolysis. 2 2 2 2 varying from fg = 0 (high LET neutron radiolysis) to fg = 1 (low-LET gamma radiolysis). ” In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. The correct Figure 3 appears below: Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 4 of 9 Simulations have been performed for fraction of -rays varying from f = 0 (high LET Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 9 neutron radiolysis) to f = 1 (low-LET gamma radiolysis).” In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. The correct Figure 3 appears below: (a) (b) Figure 3. Simulated changes in the steady state concentrations of oxidants resulting from base ad- Figure 3. Simulated changes in the steady state concentrations of oxidants resulting from base −1 dition vs. fraction of γ-rays in the mixed gamma - fast neutron radiation: (a) dose rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) addition vs. fraction of -rays in the mixed gamma-fast neutron radiation: (a) dose rate 1 kGys ; −1 −4 −1 dose rate 10 kGy·s . The solid and dashed lines refer to 2·10 mol kg LiOH aqueous solution and 1 4 1 (b) dose rate 10 kGys . The solid and dashed lines refer to 210 mol kg LiOH aqueous solution to neutral water, respectively. The direction of changes is marked by arrows. and to neutral water, respectively. The direction of changes is marked by arrows. In paragraph 2 and 3, the sentences “In the alkaline solution, the steady-state concen- Paragraphs 2 and 3, “In the alkaline solution, the steady-state concentration of stable tration of stable oxidants is significantly reduced. A change in O2 concentration is more oxidants is significantly reduced. A change in O concentration is more pronounced at −1 pronounced at the dose rate 1 kGy·s and develops with increasing fg. Simulation shows the dose rate 1 kGys and develops with increasing f . Simulation shows the decrease the decrease by 60% and 85%, respectively, for fast neutron (fg = 0) and gamma (fg = 1) by 60% and 85%, respectively, for fast neutron (f = 0) and gamma (f = 1) radiolysis g g −1 −1 1 1 radiolysis at 1 kGy·s , compared to 32% (fg = 0) and 74% (fg = 1) at 10 kGy·s . In contrast at 1 kGys , compared to 32% (f = 0) and 74% (f = 1) at 10 kGys . In contrast to g g to O2, the decrease in the concentration of H2O2 is not very sensitive to either radiation O , the decrease in the concentration of H O is not very sensitive to either radiation 2 2 2 composition or dose rate. At a smaller dose rate, the amount of H2O2 drops by 81%. At 10 composition or dose rate. At a smaller dose rate, the amount of H O drops by 81%. At 2 2 1 −1 kGy·s , decreases by 73% and 77% were obtained for fg = 0 and fg = 1, respectively. 10 kGys , decreases by 73% and 77% were obtained for f = 0 and f = 1, respectively.” g g • • Steady-state concentrations of HO2 and OH are less sensitive to the addition of base. and “Steady-state concentrations of HO and OH are less sensitive to the addition of 1 −1  •  • At 1 kGy·s , a decrease in [HO2 ] but an increase in [ OH] by 25% and 50% were obtained base. At 1 kGys , a decrease in [HO ] but an increase in [ OH] by 25% and 50% were obtained for f for = 0fg and = 0 and f = 1, fgr = espectively 1, respecti . T vel aking y. Tinto aking i account nto athat ccount tha the concentration t the concentra OHtion OH is by g g several orders of magnitude lower, the overall number of oxidants in the alkaline solution is by several orders of magnitude lower, the overall number of oxidants in the alkaline solution is greatly is gre diminish atly dim ed.” inish shou ed.” ld be changed to “In alkaline solution, the steady-state concentration of HO shoul isd significantly be changed t reduced, o “In alk irr aline espective solution, the stea of the dosedy- rate sta and te concentra radiationtion of HO2 is composition. The influence of these factors is seen, however, in the case of O , H O , and significantly reduced, irrespective of the dose rate and radiation composition. The influ- 2 2 2 OH. Simulation shows that at a small fraction of gamma radiation, base addition may ence of these factors is seen, however, in the case of O2, H2O2, and OH. Simulation shows decrease the amount of OH and increase concentration of the stable oxidants (O and that at a small fraction of gamma radiation, base addition may decrease the amount of H O ). This negative effect of base addition is less pronounced at 1 kGys ”. OH and increase concentration of the stable oxidants (O2 and H2O2). This negative effect 2 2 −1 of base addition is less pronounced at 1 kGy·s ”. 6. Changes in Section 3.2 Effectiveness of Hydrogen Addition in Suppressing Production of Stable Oxidants 6. Changes in Section 3.2 Effectiveness of Hydrogen Addition in Suppressing In paragraph 2 line 3–4 the sentence “In Figure 4, the calculated steady concentration Production of Stable Oxidants of H O “ should be changed to “In Figure 4, the calculated steady-state concentration 2 2 In paragraph 2 line 3–4 the sentence “In Figure 4, the calculated steady concentration of H O ” 2 2 of H2O2“ should be changed to “In Figure 4, the calculated steady-state concentration of In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 4 as published. The correct H2O2” Figure 4 appears below: In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 4 as published. The correct In paragraph 3 line 3–4 the sentence “The reduction in H O is not very sensitive to 2 2 Figure 4 appears below: LET and dose rate.” should be changed to “The reduction in H O is more effective for 2 2 high-LET radiolysis and lower dose rate”. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 5 of 9 (a) (b) Figure 4. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of H2O2 to hydrogen addition to neu- −4 −1 − tral water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol⋅kg OH ions (blue): (a) −1 −1 dose rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy·s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma radiolysis, respectively. (a) (b) In paragraph 3 line 3–4 the sentence “The reduction in H2O2 is not very sensitive to Figure 4. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of H2O2 to hydrogen addition to neu- Figure 4. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of H O to hydrogen addition to 2 2 LET and dose rate.” should be changed to “The reduction in−4 H2O2 is−1 mor−e effective for 4 1 tral water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol⋅kg OH ions (blue): (a) neutral water at 300 C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 210 molkg OH ions (blue): −1 −1 high-LET radiolysis and 1 lower dose rate”. 1 dose rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy·s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma (a) dose rate 1 kGys ; (b) dose rate 10 kGys . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and radiolysis, resp In paragra ectively. ph 5 line 5–6 the sentence “The influence of pH is slightly more pro- gamma radiolysis, respectively. nounced at the higher dose rate and lower LET.” should be changed to “In the presence In paragraph 5 line 5–6 the sentence “The influence of pH is slightly more pronounced In paragraph 3 line 3–4 the sentence “The reduction in H2O2 is not very sensitive to of base the effectiveness of H2 injection increases about one hundred times for H2O2 and at the higher dose rate and lower LET.” should be changed to “In the presence of base LET and dose rate.” should be changed to “The reduction in H2O2 is more effective for by four orders of magnitude for O2”. the effectiveness of H injection increases about one hundred times for H O and by four 2 2 2 high-LET radiolysis and lower dose rate”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The correct orders of magnitude for O ”. In paragraph 5 line 5–6 the sentence “The influence of pH is slightly more pro- In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The correct Figure 5 appears below: Figure 5 appears below: nounced at the higher dose rate and lower LET.” should be changed to “In the presence of base the effectiveness of H2 injection increases about one hundred times for H2O2 and by four orders of magnitude for O2”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The correct Figure 5 appears below: (a) (b) Figure 5. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of O2 to hydrogen added to neutral Figure 5. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of O to hydrogen added to neutral −4 −1 − 4 1 water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol kg OH ions (blue): (a) dose water at 300 C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 210 mol kg OH ions (blue): (a) dose −1 −1 1 1 rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy· s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma radi- rate 1 kGys ; (b) dose rate 10 kGys . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma olysis, respectively. radiolysis, respectively. (a) (b) In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The corrected In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The corrected Figure 5. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of O2 to hydrogen added to neutral Table 3 appears below. Table 3 appears below. −4 −1 − water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol kg OH ions (blue): (a) dose −1 −1 rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy·s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma radi- olysis, respectively. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The corrected Table 3 appears below. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 9 Table 3. Effectiveness of hydrogen addition expressed as a ratio of the steady state concentration in Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 6 of 9 −4 −1 the absence of extra hydrogen and in the solution containing 1.5·10 mol·kg H2. −1 −1 1 kGy·s 10 kGy·s Oxidant/Solution Table 3. Effectiveness of hydrogen addition expressed as a ratio of the steady state concentration in Neutron γ-Radiolysis Neutron γ-Radiolysis 4 1 the absence of extra hydrogen and in the solution 0 containing 0 1.510 molkg H . 0 0 H2O2/neutral 8.8·10 3.1·10 4.2·10 2.4·10 2 2 2 2 H2O2/alkaline 8.5·10 1.4·10 6.5·10 1.0·10 1 1 1 kGys 10 kGys Oxidant/Solution 2 2 2 2 Neutron -Radiolysis Neutron -Radiolysis O2/neutral 4.2·10 2.7·10 1.5·10 1.1·10 0 0 0 0 6 6 5 6 O2/Halk Oal /neutraline 2.2·10 8.8 5. 10 0· 3.110 10 8. 4.2107·10 2.4 1. 10 4·10 2 2 2 2 2 2 H O /alkaline 8.510 1.410 6.510 1.010 2 2 2 2 2 2 O /neutral 4.210 2.710 1.510 1.110 7. Changes in Section 4.1 Significance of Reactions 6 6 5 6 O /alkaline 2.210 5.010 8.710 1.410 In paragraph 1 line 4–8 the sentences “Simulation performed for the dose rate 1 −1 kGy·s showed that skipping reactions (1), (9), (10), (16), (18), (21), (22), (47), and (52) re- 7. Changes in Section 4.1 Significance of Reactions sults in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of radiolytic products below In paragraph 1 line 4–8 the sentences “Simulation performed for the dose rate 0.1%, for all the systems studied. Reactions (2), (23), (55), (56) are slightly more important, 1 kGys showed that skipping reactions (1), (9), (10), (16), (18), (21), (22), (47), and −5 −1 but their integrated contributions are of the order of 10 mol·kg .” should be changed to (52) results in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of radiolytic products below −1 “Simulation performed for the dose rate 1 kGy·s showed that skipping reactions (1), (22), 0.1%, for all the systems studied. Reactions (2), (23), (55), (56) are slightly more important, 5 1 (47), (52), (53), (55), and (56) results in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of but their integrated contributions are of the order of 10 molkg .” should be changed to radiolytic products below 0.1%, for all the systems studied”. “Simulation performed for the dose rate 1 kGys showed that skipping reactions (1), (22), (47), (52), (53), (55), and (56) results in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of In paragraph 2 lines 5–10 the sentences “The upper part presents net contributions radiolytic products below 0.1%, for all the systems studied”. R24-R25, R26-R27, R36-R37 of equilibria (24) ↔ (25), (26) ↔ (27), (36) ↔ (37), obtained for In paragraph 2 lines 5–10 the sentences “The upper part presents net contributions gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the lower part refers to equilibria (38) ↔ R24-R25, R26-R27, R36-R37 of equilibria (24) $ (25), (26) $ (27), (36) $ (37), obtained for (39), (40) ↔ (41), (42) ↔ (43), which net contributions are two orders of magnitude smaller. gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the lower part refers to equilibria (38) $ (39), Net contributions R28-R29, R30-R31, R32-R33, R34-R35, R49-R50, not shown in the figure, (40) $ (41), (42) $ (43), which net contributions are two orders of magnitude smaller. Net −7 −4 −1 are of the order of 10 –10 mol·kg .” should be changed to “The upper part presents net contributions R28-R29, R30-R31, R32-R33, R34-R35, R49-R50, not shown in the figure, are 7 4 1 contributions R24-R25, R38-R39, R40-R41, R42-R43 of equilibria (24) ↔ (25), (38) ↔ (39), of the order of 10 –10 molkg .” should be changed to “The upper part presents net (40) ↔ (41), (42) ↔ (43), obtained for gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the contributions R24-R25, R38-R39, R40-R41, R42-R43 of equilibria (24) $ (25), (38) $ (39), (40) $ (41), (42) $ (43), obtained for gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the lower part refers to equilibria (26) ↔ (27), (28) ↔ (29), (34) ↔ (35), (36) ↔ (37). Net contri- −7 −5 −1 lower part refers to equilibria (26) $ (27), (28) $ (29), (34) $ (35), (36) $ (37). Net butions R30-R31, R32-R33, R49-R50 are of the order of 10 –10 mol·kg and are not shown 7 5 1 contributions R30-R31, R32-R33, R49-R50 are of the order of 10 –10 molkg and are in Figure 6”. not shown in Figure 6”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. The correct In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. The correct Figure 6 appears below: Figure 6 appears below: Figure 6. Net contributions of equilibria reactions calculated for 1 kGys fast − neutr 1 on (n) and Figure 6. Net contributions of equilibria reactions calculated for 1 kGy·s fast neutron (n) and 5 1 gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and hydrogenated (310 molkg−5 H ) −1 gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and hydrogenated (3·10 mol·kg H2 ) 4 1 neutral and alkaline systems. Equilibria resulting in net contribution below 110 mol−4kg are−1 neutral and alkaline systems. Equilibria resulting in net contribution below 1·10 mol·kg are not not shown. shown. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 7 of 9 In paragraph 3 the sentences “Equilibrium (24) $ (25) is shifted to the right, whereas In paragraph 3 the sentences “Equilibrium (24) ↔ (25) is shifted to the right, whereas equilibria (26) $ (27) and (36) $ (37) are shifted to the left. The net contributions of these equilibria (26) ↔ (27) and (36) ↔ (37) are shifted to the left. The net contributions of these equilibria increase with LET and are decreased by the addition of base and H . In the 5 1 equilibria increase with LET and are decreased by the addition of base and H2. In the al- alkaline solution containing 310 molkg H net contribution of these equilibria is less 3 1 −5 −1 kaline solution containing 3·10 mol·kg H2 net contribution of these equilibria is less than than 110 molkg , whereas the right shifts of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) −3 −1 obtained for this system are highly increased. The net contribution of right-shifted equi- 1·10 mol·kg , whereas the right shifts of equilibria (40) ↔ (41) and (38) ↔ (39) obtained librium (42) $ (43) is almost independent of the composition of the solution and more for this system are highly increased. The net contribution of right-shifted equilibrium (42) meaningful in the systems irradiated by fast neutrons.” should be changed to “Equilibria ↔ (43) is almost independent of the composition of the solution and more meaningful in (24) $ (25), (26) $ (27), (28) $ (29), (36) $ (37), (38) $ (39) (40) $ (41), are shifted to the systems irradiated by fast neutrons.” should be changed to “Equilibria (24) ↔ (25), the left, whereas equilibria (34) $ (35), (42) $ (43) are shifted to the right. The shift of (26) ↔ (27), (28) ↔ (29), (36) ↔ (37), (38) ↔ (39) (40) ↔ (41), are shifted to the left, whereas equilibrium (42) $ (43) towards reaction (43) is almost independent of the composition equilibria (34) ↔ (35), (42) ↔ (43) are shifted to the right. The shift of equilibrium (42) ↔ of solution and more meaningful in the systems irradiated by fast neutrons. Net contribu- tions of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) are highly enlarged in the alkaline solution (43) towards reaction (43) is almost independent of the composition of solution and more 5 1 – containing 310 molkg H . The increased production of e and H enhances the 2 aq meaningful in the systems irradiated by fast neutrons. Net contributions of equilibria (40) reducing conditions”. −5 ↔ (41) and (38) ↔ (39) are highly enlarged in the alkaline solution containing 3·10 In paragraph 5 line 6 the sentence “This is a consequence of significant right shifts −1 •– • mol·kg H2. The increased production of eaq and H enhances the reducing conditions”. of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) (Figure 6).” should be changed to “This is a In the original publication, there was a mistake in Scheme 3 as published. The correct consequence of significant left shifts of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) (Figure 6).” In the original publication, there was a mistake in Scheme 3 as published. The correct Scheme 3 appears below: Scheme 3 appears below: (a) gamma—radiation (b) fast neutron—radiation Scheme 3. Graphical presentation of importance of reactions from Table 2. The integrated contribu- Scheme 3. Graphical presentation of importance of reactions from Table 2. The integrated contribu- tions R were classified into categories I, II, and III, defined in the text above the scheme. Colours tions R were classified into categories I, II, and III, defined in the text above the scheme. Colours cor- 5 1 −5 −1 correspond to neutral water (orange), alkaline solution (green), and hydrogenated (3·10 mol·kg respond to neutral water (orange), alkaline solution (green), and hydrogenated (310 molkg H ) 1 −1 H2) syst systems: ems: neutral neutral (viol (violet) and et) a alkaline nd alkaline (yellow). (yeBased llow).on Ba the sed simulation on the sifor mu1 lation for 1 kG kGys . y·s . 8. Changes in Section 4.2 Key Reactions Contributing to Production of Oxidants 8. Changes in Section 4.2 Key Reactions Contributing to Production of Oxidants In paragraph 2 line 8–12 the sentences “This net contribution is only relevant for In paragraph 2 line 8–12 the sentences “This net contribution is only relevant for the the gamma radiolysis of alkaline solution. Production P(n) is the most important source of H O in fast neutron radiolysis of neutral water, whereas P(g), R3(g), and R14(g) are gamma radiolysis of alkaline solution. Production P(n) is the most important source of 2 2 comparable. Contribution R14(g) is highly increased by H injection to neutral water but H2O2 in fast neutron radiolysis of neutral water, whereas P(g), R3(g), and R14(g) are com- parable. Contribution R14(g) is highly increased by H2 injection to neutral water but min- imised in the presence of a base.” should be changed to “In the case of the neutral system, the most important source of H2O2 is production P(n) in neutron radiolysis, P(g) in gamma radiolysis, and reaction R3(g) in gamma-irradiated water”. In paragraph 3 line 1–3 the sentence “The enormous increase in R3(g) observed for the alkaline solution and neutral hydrogenated system is balanced by the decay of H2O2 •− • in reaction with the radicals, eaq and OH.” should be changed to “The increase in R3(g) Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 8 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 9 minimised in the presence of a base.” should be changed to “In the case of the neutral system, the most important source of H O is production P(n) in neutron radiolysis, P(g) in 2 2 gamma radiolysis, and reaction R3(g) in gamma-irradiated water”. observed for the alkaline solution and hydrogenated neutral system is balanced by the In paragraph 3 line 1–3 the sentence “The enormous increase in R3(g) observed for the •– • decay of H2O2 in reaction with the radicals, eaq and OH”. alkaline solution and neutral hydrogenated system is balanced by the decay of H O in 2 2 In paragraph 5 the sentences “In neutral and neutrally hydrogenated systems, O2 de- reaction with the radicals, e and OH.” should be changed to “The increase in R3(g) aq • • cays in reaction (13), producing HO2 , which reforms O2 in reaction (19) with OH. The observed for the alkaline solution and hydrogenated neutral system is balanced by the restoration of O2 is less productive in the hydrogenated system, thus diminishing the con- decay of H O in reaction with the radicals, e and OH”. 2 2 aq In paragraph 5 the sentences “In neutral and neutrally hydrogenated systems, O centration of O2 (Figure 5). In the alkaline solution, O2 is produced in reaction (19) but decays in reaction (13), producing •− HO , which reforms O in reaction (19) with OH. 2 2 effectively scavenged by eaq in reaction (8). In the alkaline hydrogenated system, R19(g) The restoration of O is less productive in the hydrogenated system, thus diminishing 2 −6 −5 −1 and R19(n) are of the order of 10 and 10 mol·kg , respectively, and the formation of O2 the concentration of O (Figure 5). In the alkaline solution, O is produced in reaction 2 2 is suppressed.” should be changed to “In neutral and hydrogenated neutral systems, O2 (19) but effectively scavenged by e in reaction (8). In the alkaline hydrogenated aq • •– decays in reactions (13) and (8) producing HO 6 2 and5 O2 , which 1 reform O2 in reactions (19) system, R19(g) and R19(n) are of the order of 10 and 10 molkg , respectively, and the and (18) with OH. The contribution of reactions (8) and (18) is significantly increased in formation of O is suppressed.” should be changed to “In neutral and hydrogenated neutral systems, O decays in reactions (13) and (8) producing HO and O , which reform O in the alkaline solution, but the restoration of O2 is less productive. Thus, the net effect is a 2 2 2 2 reactions (19) and (18) with OH. The contribution of reactions (8) and (18) is significantly reduction in the concentration of O2. In the hydrogenated alkaline system, the contribu- increased in the alkaline solution, but the restoration of O is less productive. Thus, the −5 −6 −1 tion of reactions (18) and (19) is of the order of 10 and 10 mol·kg , respectively, and the net effect is a reduction in the concentration of O . In the hydrogenated alkaline system, formation of O2 is suppressed (Figure 5)”. 5 6 1 the contribution of reactions (18) and (19) is of the order of 10 and 10 molkg , In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. The correct respectively, and the formation of O is suppressed (Figure 5)”. Figure 7 ap In the p original ears be publication, low: there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. The correct Figure 7 appears below: Figure 7. Integrated contributions of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of H O 2 2 Figure 7. Integrated contributions of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of H2O2 calculated for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and calculated for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and 5 1 hydrogenated (310 molkg H ) neutral and alkaline systems. Integrated production rates are −5 −1 hydrogenated (3·10 mol·kg H2) neutral and alkaline systems. Integrated production rates are rep- represented by P(g) and P(n). Based on the simulation for 1 kGys . −1 resented by P(g) and P(n). Based on the simulation for 1 kGy·s . In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. The correct Figur In t e 8happears e origina below: l publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. The correct Figure 8 appears below: Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 9 of 9 Figure 8. Contribution of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of O calculated Figure 8. Contribution of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of O2 calc 2ulated for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis of for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis ne ofu neutral tral water, water alk , alkaline aline solu solution, tion, and hy and hydr drog ogenated enated −5 −1 −1 5 1 1 (3·10 mol·kg H2) neutral and alkaline systems. Based on the simulation for 1 kGy·s . (310 molkg H ) neutral and alkaline systems. Based on the simulation for 1 kGys . 9. Changes in Section 5 Conclusions 9. Changes in Section 5 Conclusions In paragraph 1 lines 8–9 the sentence “At higher pH the total amount of O , H O 2 2 2 In paragraph 1 lines 8–9 the sentence “At higher pH the total amount of O2, H2O2 is is significantly diminished.” should be changed to “At higher pH and f > 0.3 the total significantly diminished.” should be changed to “At higher pH and fg > 0.3 the total amount of O , H O is noticeably diminished.” 2 2 2 amount of O2, H2O2 is noticeably diminished.” In paragraph 2 line 2 the words “were discussed” should be changed to “was discussed”. In paragraph 2 line 2 the words “were discussed” should be changed to “was dis- cussed”. Reference Reference 1. Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947. [CrossRef] 1. Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water- Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947

Swiatla-Wojcik, Dorota
Applied Sciences , Volume 13 (1) – Dec 20, 2022
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/correction-swiatla-wojcik-d-a-numerical-simulation-of-radiation-q0RX5W8zv7
Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-3417
DOI
10.3390/app13010001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applied sciences Correction Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947 Dorota Swiatla-Wojcik Institute of Applied Radiation Chemistry, Lodz University of Technology, Zeromskiego 116, 90-924 Lodz, Poland; dorota.swiatla-wojcik@p.lodz.pl The author wishes to make the following corrections to this paper [1] due to an error in data in Table 2. The rate constants of reactions 36 and 37 in Table 2 were swapped. These values were correctly copied from reference 16 in the original paper [1], but they were swapped in the publication. The author confirms that the re-simulation using the corrected rate constants does not affect the main conclusion of the original paper [1] on the synergic effect of base and hydrogen. However, Figures 1–8, Scheme 3, Tables 2 and 3, and the relevant descriptions need to be updated. All the changes listed in this Correction were approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated. The author apologizes for any inconvenience caused. 1. Changes in Introduction There was a mistake in the original publication [1] in paragraph 4, line 7: “(Table 1) indicated by” should be changed to “(Table 2) indicated by”. 2. Changes in Section 2 Materials and Methods In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. In row 8 Citation: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. 4 11 11 column 6: “2.8710 ” should be changed to “1.3610 ”. In row 9 column 6: “1.3610 ” Correction: Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A should be changed to “2.8710 ”. The corrected Table 2 appears below. Numerical Simulation of Radiation In paragraph 5, lines 5–6, the sentence “The initial concentration for H and OH , Chemistry for Controlling the were obtained from” should be changed to “The initial concentration for H and OH , was Oxidising Environment in obtained from”. Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1. https:// doi.org/10.3390/app13010001 Received: 14 September 2022 Revised: 14 September 2022 Accepted: 18 November 2022 Published: 20 December 2022 Copyright: © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010001 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 2 of 9 Table 2. Reaction set for the radiolysis of high temperature water and rate constants k at 300 C (units 1 1 1 for 2nd and 1st order reactions are M s and s , respectively). For reactions between similar species, the value of k, not 2k, is given. No. Reaction k (300 C) No. Reaction k (300 C) +2 H O + 1 2 6 1 11 1 6.0610 30 H + HO ! H O 5.6910 e + e ! H + 2OH 2 2 2 2 aq aq 2   11 1 + 1 2 H + H ! H 1.0110 31 H O ! H + HO 2.5210 2 2 2 2   10 1  11 3 OH + OH ! H O 1.8010 32 H + O ! OH 5.6910 2 2 + H O + 2 2 11 1  1 4 4.3910 33 OH ! H + O 2.5210 e + H ! H + OH aq 2 11 1 11 5 e + OH ! OH 4.6910 34 H O + OH ! HO + H O 1.3610 2 2 2 aq 2  10 1 8 6 H + OH ! H O 5.5210 35 HO + H O ! H O + OH 1.7610 2 2 2 2   11 1   11 7 e + H O ! OH + OH 2.7310 36 HO + OH ! O + H O 1.3610 aq 2 2 2 2 2 2   11 1   4 8 e + O ! O 2.4910 37 O + H O ! HO + OH 2.8710 2 2 aq 2 2 2 +2 H O 1 2 11 1 +   11 9 1.6110 38 H + e ! H 7.1610 e + O ! H O + 2OH aq 2 2 aq 3 + H O 11 1  +  5 H ! H + e 10 2.1510 39 1.6510 e + O ! HO + OH aq aq 2 2 2   11 2   10 11 e + HO ! HO 2.4610 40 H + OH ! e + H O 2.2610 aq 2 aq 2 2 2   9 2   3 H + H O ! OH + H O e + H O ! H + OH 12 1.2910 41 1.1610 2 2 2 2 aq 2   11 4   4 13 H + O ! HO 1.1110 42 H + H O ! OH + H 3.0410 2 2 2 3 11 2  9 14 H + HO ! H O 3.3110 43 OH + H ! H + H O 1.1510 2 2 2 2 1    11 1   10 15 H + HO ! 2 OH 2.1410 44 OH + HO ! H O + O 8.1810 2 2 2 11 3  11 16 H + O ! HO 2.7310 45 OH + HO ! HO + OH 1.2410 2 2 2 2   8 1   10 17 OH + H O ! HO + H O 4.3510 46 O + H O ! OH + HO 8.1810 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2   11 1   10 18 OH + O ! O + OH 2.0710 47 O + HO ! OH + O 8.7610 2 2 2 2  10 1 9 19 OH + HO ! O + H O 7.4810 48 O + H ! OH + H 1.5510 2 2 2 2   7 1   10 20 HO + HO ! H O + O 4.5110 49 O + O ! O 3.2610 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3   8 1   7 21 HO + O ! HO + O 4.3110 50 O ! O + O 1.9910 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3   11 22 H O ! 0.5O + H O 3.7810 51 O + OH ! HO 2.9810 2 2 2 2 1  2 3   10 23 H O ! 2 OH 3.7810 52 e + HO ! O + OH 5.7910 2 2 aq + H O 1 + 12 5 2 8 24 H + OH ! H O 1.1310 53 7.1210 2 e + HO ! OH + 2 OH aq 1 2 3 8 25 H O ! H + OH 6.5210 54 O + HO ! O + HO 4.3110 2 2 2 2 2 1  +  11 3  2 26 O + H ! HO 5.6910 55 H O ! O + H O 1.0210 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 3 10 27 HO ! O + H 1.5510 56 O + O ! O 8.2810 + H O 1 11 6 2 11 28 OH + OH ! O + H O 1.3610 57 1.9910 2 e + e ! e + H + OH aq aq aq 1   8 O + H O ! OH + OH 29 1.7610 1 2 Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [16]. Average of the values reported in refs. [15,16]. 3 4 Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [15]. Temperature dependence reported in ref. [22]. 5  6 Value from ref. [25] extrapolated to 300 C. Temperature dependence reported from ref. [26]. 3. Changes in Section 3 Results In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The correct Figure 1 appears below: In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. The correct Figure 2 appears below: Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 9 • • • • 2 11 2 10 e +HO →HO H +OH →e +H O 11 2.46·10 40 2.26·10 • • • • 2 9 2 3 12 H +H O →OH+H O 1.29·10 41 e +H O→H +OH 1.16·10 • • • 2 11 4 4 H +H O→ OH+H 13 H +O →HO 1.11·10 42 3.04·10 • • • • 3 11 2 9 14 H +HO →H O 3.31·10 43 OH+ H →H +H O 1.15·10 • • • • 1 11 1 10 15 H +HO →2 OH 2.14·10 44 OH+HO →H O+ O 8.18·10 • • • 2 11 3 11 16 H +O →HO 2.73·10 45 OH+HO →HO +OH 1.24·10 • • • 2 8 1 • 10 17 OH+ H O →HO +H O 4.35·10 46 O +H O →OH +HO 8.18·10 • • • 2 11 1 10 18 OH+ O →O +OH 2.07·10 47 8.76·10 O +HO →OH +O • • • 2 10 1 9 19 OH+ HO →O +H O 7.48·10 48 O +H →OH +H 1.55·10 • • • 2 7 1 • 10 20 HO +HO →H O +O 4.51·10 49 O +O →O 3.26·10 • • • • 3 8 1 7 21 HO +O →HO +O 4.31·10 50 O →O +O 1.99·10 1 −2 3 11 22 H O →0.5O +H O 3.78·10 51 O +OH→ HO 2.98·10 • • • 1 −2 3 10 23 H O →2 OH 3.78·10 52 e +HO →O +OH 5.79·10 1 12 5 • 8 24 H +OH →H O 1.13·10 53 7.12·10 e +HO ⎯⎯ OH+ 2 OH • • 1 −2 3 8 25 H O→H +OH 6.52·10 54 O +HO →O +HO 4.31·10 • • • 1 11 3 −2 26 O +H →HO 5.69·10 55 H O →O +H O 1.02·10 • • • • 1 5 3 10 27 HO →O +H 1.55·10 56 O +O →O 8.28·10 1 11 6 11 • • • • 28 OH+OH →O +H O 1.36·10 57 1.99·10 e +e ⎯⎯ e +H +OH • • 1 8 29 O +H O→ OH+ OH 1.76·10 1 2 Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [16]. Average of the values reported in refs. 3 4 [15,16]. Temperature dependence recommended in ref. [15]. Temperature dependence reported 5 6 in ref. [22]. Value from ref. [25] extrapolated to 300 °C. Temperature dependence reported from ref. [26]. + – In paragraph 5, lines 5–6, the sentence “The initial concentration for H and OH , + – were obtained from” should be changed to “The initial concentration for H and OH , was obtained from”. 3. Changes in Section 3 Results In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The correct Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 3 of 9 Figure 1 appears below: (a) (b) Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 9 Figure 1. Concentration profiles of the radiolytic species calculated for neutral deaerated water ex- Figure 1. Concentration profiles of the radiolytic species calculated for neutral deaerated water −1 posed to (a) gamma and (b) fast neutron radiation at 300 °C and dose rate 1 kGy·s . exposed to (a) gamma and (b) fast neutron radiation at 300 C and dose rate 1 kGys . In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. The correct Figure 2 appears below: Figure 2. The simulated steady state concentrations of oxidants formed in neutral water vs. fraction Figure 2. The simulated steady state concentrations of oxidants formed in neutral water vs. fraction −1 of ofγ -rays ( -raysf( gf) i)nin the mi the mixed xed gamma-fas gamma-fast t neutron rad neutron radiation: iation: so solid lid lilines nes indi indicate cate do dose se rate of rate of 1 k 1 kGy Gy·ss ; ; −11 dashed + symbol indicates 10 kGy·s . dashed + symbol indicates 10 kGys . 4. Changes in Section 3.1.1 Neutral Water 4. Changes in Section 3.1.1 Neutral Water In paragraph 3 line 3–5, the sentence “leads to a decline in pH by 0.0023 at the radiation In paragraph 3 line 3–5, the sentence “leads to a decline in pH by 0.0023 at the radia- 1 1 dose of 1 kGys and by 0.0039 at 10 kGys , whereas exposure to rays leads to a decline −1 −1 tion dose of 1 kGy·s and by 0.0039 at 10 kGy·s , whereas exposure to γ rays leads to a 1 1 in pH by 0.0013 at 1 kGys and by 0.0028 at 10 kGys ” should be changed to “leads to −1 −1 decline in pH by 0.0013 at 1 kGy·s and by 0.0028 at 10 kGy·s ” should be changed to 1 1 a decline in pH by 0.0037 at the radiation dose of 1 kGys and by 0.0063 at 10 kGys , −1 “leads to a decline in pH by 0.0037 at the radiation dose of 1 kGy·s and by 0.0063 at 10 whereas exposure to rays leads to a decline in pH by 0.0020 at 1 kGys and by 0.0041 at −1 −1 kGy·s , whereas exposure to γ rays leads to a decline in pH by 0.0020 at 1 kGy·s and by 10 kGys ”. −1 0.0041 at 10 kGy·s ”. 5. Changes in Section 3.1.2 Alkaline Aqueous Solution 5. Changes in Section 3.1.2 Alkaline Aqueous Solution In paragraph 1, the sentences “In comparison with neutral water, radiolysis of alkaline In paragraph 1, the sentences “In comparison with neutral water, radiolysis of alka- solution results in lower steady-state concentrations of H O , O , HO , H , H , and O 2 2 2 2 2 2 • • line solution results in lower steady-state concent  rations of H2O2, O2, HO2 , H2, H , and but in the higher concentrations of e , OH, and HO . Figure 3 presents how the aq 2 •− •− • – O2 but in the higher concentrations of eaq , OH, and HO2 . Figure 3 presents how the addition of base alters the steady-state concentrations of O , H O , OH, and HO in 2 2 2 2 • • addition of base alters the steady-state concentrations of O2, H2O2, OH, and HO2 in the the mixed gamma–neutron radiolysis. Simulations were performed for fraction of rays mixed gamma–neutron radiolysis.” should be changed to “Figure 3 presents how the ad- varying from f = 0 (high LET neutron radiolysis) to f = 1 (low-LET gamma radiolysis).” g g • • dition of base alters the steady state concentrations of O2, H2O2, OH and HO2 in the should be changed to “Figure 3 presents how the addition of base alters the steady state mixed gamma-neutron radiolysis. Simulations have been performed for fraction of γ-rays concentrations of O , H O , OH and HO in the mixed gamma-neutron radiolysis. 2 2 2 2 varying from fg = 0 (high LET neutron radiolysis) to fg = 1 (low-LET gamma radiolysis). ” In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. The correct Figure 3 appears below: Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 4 of 9 Simulations have been performed for fraction of -rays varying from f = 0 (high LET Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 9 neutron radiolysis) to f = 1 (low-LET gamma radiolysis).” In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. The correct Figure 3 appears below: (a) (b) Figure 3. Simulated changes in the steady state concentrations of oxidants resulting from base ad- Figure 3. Simulated changes in the steady state concentrations of oxidants resulting from base −1 dition vs. fraction of γ-rays in the mixed gamma - fast neutron radiation: (a) dose rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) addition vs. fraction of -rays in the mixed gamma-fast neutron radiation: (a) dose rate 1 kGys ; −1 −4 −1 dose rate 10 kGy·s . The solid and dashed lines refer to 2·10 mol kg LiOH aqueous solution and 1 4 1 (b) dose rate 10 kGys . The solid and dashed lines refer to 210 mol kg LiOH aqueous solution to neutral water, respectively. The direction of changes is marked by arrows. and to neutral water, respectively. The direction of changes is marked by arrows. In paragraph 2 and 3, the sentences “In the alkaline solution, the steady-state concen- Paragraphs 2 and 3, “In the alkaline solution, the steady-state concentration of stable tration of stable oxidants is significantly reduced. A change in O2 concentration is more oxidants is significantly reduced. A change in O concentration is more pronounced at −1 pronounced at the dose rate 1 kGy·s and develops with increasing fg. Simulation shows the dose rate 1 kGys and develops with increasing f . Simulation shows the decrease the decrease by 60% and 85%, respectively, for fast neutron (fg = 0) and gamma (fg = 1) by 60% and 85%, respectively, for fast neutron (f = 0) and gamma (f = 1) radiolysis g g −1 −1 1 1 radiolysis at 1 kGy·s , compared to 32% (fg = 0) and 74% (fg = 1) at 10 kGy·s . In contrast at 1 kGys , compared to 32% (f = 0) and 74% (f = 1) at 10 kGys . In contrast to g g to O2, the decrease in the concentration of H2O2 is not very sensitive to either radiation O , the decrease in the concentration of H O is not very sensitive to either radiation 2 2 2 composition or dose rate. At a smaller dose rate, the amount of H2O2 drops by 81%. At 10 composition or dose rate. At a smaller dose rate, the amount of H O drops by 81%. At 2 2 1 −1 kGy·s , decreases by 73% and 77% were obtained for fg = 0 and fg = 1, respectively. 10 kGys , decreases by 73% and 77% were obtained for f = 0 and f = 1, respectively.” g g • • Steady-state concentrations of HO2 and OH are less sensitive to the addition of base. and “Steady-state concentrations of HO and OH are less sensitive to the addition of 1 −1  •  • At 1 kGy·s , a decrease in [HO2 ] but an increase in [ OH] by 25% and 50% were obtained base. At 1 kGys , a decrease in [HO ] but an increase in [ OH] by 25% and 50% were obtained for f for = 0fg and = 0 and f = 1, fgr = espectively 1, respecti . T vel aking y. Tinto aking i account nto athat ccount tha the concentration t the concentra OHtion OH is by g g several orders of magnitude lower, the overall number of oxidants in the alkaline solution is by several orders of magnitude lower, the overall number of oxidants in the alkaline solution is greatly is gre diminish atly dim ed.” inish shou ed.” ld be changed to “In alkaline solution, the steady-state concentration of HO shoul isd significantly be changed t reduced, o “In alk irr aline espective solution, the stea of the dosedy- rate sta and te concentra radiationtion of HO2 is composition. The influence of these factors is seen, however, in the case of O , H O , and significantly reduced, irrespective of the dose rate and radiation composition. The influ- 2 2 2 OH. Simulation shows that at a small fraction of gamma radiation, base addition may ence of these factors is seen, however, in the case of O2, H2O2, and OH. Simulation shows decrease the amount of OH and increase concentration of the stable oxidants (O and that at a small fraction of gamma radiation, base addition may decrease the amount of H O ). This negative effect of base addition is less pronounced at 1 kGys ”. OH and increase concentration of the stable oxidants (O2 and H2O2). This negative effect 2 2 −1 of base addition is less pronounced at 1 kGy·s ”. 6. Changes in Section 3.2 Effectiveness of Hydrogen Addition in Suppressing Production of Stable Oxidants 6. Changes in Section 3.2 Effectiveness of Hydrogen Addition in Suppressing In paragraph 2 line 3–4 the sentence “In Figure 4, the calculated steady concentration Production of Stable Oxidants of H O “ should be changed to “In Figure 4, the calculated steady-state concentration 2 2 In paragraph 2 line 3–4 the sentence “In Figure 4, the calculated steady concentration of H O ” 2 2 of H2O2“ should be changed to “In Figure 4, the calculated steady-state concentration of In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 4 as published. The correct H2O2” Figure 4 appears below: In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 4 as published. The correct In paragraph 3 line 3–4 the sentence “The reduction in H O is not very sensitive to 2 2 Figure 4 appears below: LET and dose rate.” should be changed to “The reduction in H O is more effective for 2 2 high-LET radiolysis and lower dose rate”. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 5 of 9 (a) (b) Figure 4. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of H2O2 to hydrogen addition to neu- −4 −1 − tral water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol⋅kg OH ions (blue): (a) −1 −1 dose rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy·s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma radiolysis, respectively. (a) (b) In paragraph 3 line 3–4 the sentence “The reduction in H2O2 is not very sensitive to Figure 4. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of H2O2 to hydrogen addition to neu- Figure 4. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of H O to hydrogen addition to 2 2 LET and dose rate.” should be changed to “The reduction in−4 H2O2 is−1 mor−e effective for 4 1 tral water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol⋅kg OH ions (blue): (a) neutral water at 300 C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 210 molkg OH ions (blue): −1 −1 high-LET radiolysis and 1 lower dose rate”. 1 dose rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy·s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma (a) dose rate 1 kGys ; (b) dose rate 10 kGys . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and radiolysis, resp In paragra ectively. ph 5 line 5–6 the sentence “The influence of pH is slightly more pro- gamma radiolysis, respectively. nounced at the higher dose rate and lower LET.” should be changed to “In the presence In paragraph 5 line 5–6 the sentence “The influence of pH is slightly more pronounced In paragraph 3 line 3–4 the sentence “The reduction in H2O2 is not very sensitive to of base the effectiveness of H2 injection increases about one hundred times for H2O2 and at the higher dose rate and lower LET.” should be changed to “In the presence of base LET and dose rate.” should be changed to “The reduction in H2O2 is more effective for by four orders of magnitude for O2”. the effectiveness of H injection increases about one hundred times for H O and by four 2 2 2 high-LET radiolysis and lower dose rate”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The correct orders of magnitude for O ”. In paragraph 5 line 5–6 the sentence “The influence of pH is slightly more pro- In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The correct Figure 5 appears below: Figure 5 appears below: nounced at the higher dose rate and lower LET.” should be changed to “In the presence of base the effectiveness of H2 injection increases about one hundred times for H2O2 and by four orders of magnitude for O2”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. The correct Figure 5 appears below: (a) (b) Figure 5. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of O2 to hydrogen added to neutral Figure 5. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of O to hydrogen added to neutral −4 −1 − 4 1 water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol kg OH ions (blue): (a) dose water at 300 C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 210 mol kg OH ions (blue): (a) dose −1 −1 1 1 rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy· s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma radi- rate 1 kGys ; (b) dose rate 10 kGys . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma olysis, respectively. radiolysis, respectively. (a) (b) In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The corrected In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The corrected Figure 5. Simulated response of the steady state concentration of O2 to hydrogen added to neutral Table 3 appears below. Table 3 appears below. −4 −1 − water at 300 °C (black) and to alkaline solution containing 2·10 mol kg OH ions (blue): (a) dose −1 −1 rate 1 kGy·s ; (b) dose rate 10 kGy·s . Solid and dashed lines refer to fast neutron and gamma radi- olysis, respectively. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The corrected Table 3 appears below. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 9 Table 3. Effectiveness of hydrogen addition expressed as a ratio of the steady state concentration in Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 6 of 9 −4 −1 the absence of extra hydrogen and in the solution containing 1.5·10 mol·kg H2. −1 −1 1 kGy·s 10 kGy·s Oxidant/Solution Table 3. Effectiveness of hydrogen addition expressed as a ratio of the steady state concentration in Neutron γ-Radiolysis Neutron γ-Radiolysis 4 1 the absence of extra hydrogen and in the solution 0 containing 0 1.510 molkg H . 0 0 H2O2/neutral 8.8·10 3.1·10 4.2·10 2.4·10 2 2 2 2 H2O2/alkaline 8.5·10 1.4·10 6.5·10 1.0·10 1 1 1 kGys 10 kGys Oxidant/Solution 2 2 2 2 Neutron -Radiolysis Neutron -Radiolysis O2/neutral 4.2·10 2.7·10 1.5·10 1.1·10 0 0 0 0 6 6 5 6 O2/Halk Oal /neutraline 2.2·10 8.8 5. 10 0· 3.110 10 8. 4.2107·10 2.4 1. 10 4·10 2 2 2 2 2 2 H O /alkaline 8.510 1.410 6.510 1.010 2 2 2 2 2 2 O /neutral 4.210 2.710 1.510 1.110 7. Changes in Section 4.1 Significance of Reactions 6 6 5 6 O /alkaline 2.210 5.010 8.710 1.410 In paragraph 1 line 4–8 the sentences “Simulation performed for the dose rate 1 −1 kGy·s showed that skipping reactions (1), (9), (10), (16), (18), (21), (22), (47), and (52) re- 7. Changes in Section 4.1 Significance of Reactions sults in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of radiolytic products below In paragraph 1 line 4–8 the sentences “Simulation performed for the dose rate 0.1%, for all the systems studied. Reactions (2), (23), (55), (56) are slightly more important, 1 kGys showed that skipping reactions (1), (9), (10), (16), (18), (21), (22), (47), and −5 −1 but their integrated contributions are of the order of 10 mol·kg .” should be changed to (52) results in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of radiolytic products below −1 “Simulation performed for the dose rate 1 kGy·s showed that skipping reactions (1), (22), 0.1%, for all the systems studied. Reactions (2), (23), (55), (56) are slightly more important, 5 1 (47), (52), (53), (55), and (56) results in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of but their integrated contributions are of the order of 10 molkg .” should be changed to radiolytic products below 0.1%, for all the systems studied”. “Simulation performed for the dose rate 1 kGys showed that skipping reactions (1), (22), (47), (52), (53), (55), and (56) results in a relative error of the steady-state concentrations of In paragraph 2 lines 5–10 the sentences “The upper part presents net contributions radiolytic products below 0.1%, for all the systems studied”. R24-R25, R26-R27, R36-R37 of equilibria (24) ↔ (25), (26) ↔ (27), (36) ↔ (37), obtained for In paragraph 2 lines 5–10 the sentences “The upper part presents net contributions gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the lower part refers to equilibria (38) ↔ R24-R25, R26-R27, R36-R37 of equilibria (24) $ (25), (26) $ (27), (36) $ (37), obtained for (39), (40) ↔ (41), (42) ↔ (43), which net contributions are two orders of magnitude smaller. gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the lower part refers to equilibria (38) $ (39), Net contributions R28-R29, R30-R31, R32-R33, R34-R35, R49-R50, not shown in the figure, (40) $ (41), (42) $ (43), which net contributions are two orders of magnitude smaller. Net −7 −4 −1 are of the order of 10 –10 mol·kg .” should be changed to “The upper part presents net contributions R28-R29, R30-R31, R32-R33, R34-R35, R49-R50, not shown in the figure, are 7 4 1 contributions R24-R25, R38-R39, R40-R41, R42-R43 of equilibria (24) ↔ (25), (38) ↔ (39), of the order of 10 –10 molkg .” should be changed to “The upper part presents net (40) ↔ (41), (42) ↔ (43), obtained for gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the contributions R24-R25, R38-R39, R40-R41, R42-R43 of equilibria (24) $ (25), (38) $ (39), (40) $ (41), (42) $ (43), obtained for gamma and fast neutron irradiation, whereas the lower part refers to equilibria (26) ↔ (27), (28) ↔ (29), (34) ↔ (35), (36) ↔ (37). Net contri- −7 −5 −1 lower part refers to equilibria (26) $ (27), (28) $ (29), (34) $ (35), (36) $ (37). Net butions R30-R31, R32-R33, R49-R50 are of the order of 10 –10 mol·kg and are not shown 7 5 1 contributions R30-R31, R32-R33, R49-R50 are of the order of 10 –10 molkg and are in Figure 6”. not shown in Figure 6”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. The correct In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. The correct Figure 6 appears below: Figure 6 appears below: Figure 6. Net contributions of equilibria reactions calculated for 1 kGys fast − neutr 1 on (n) and Figure 6. Net contributions of equilibria reactions calculated for 1 kGy·s fast neutron (n) and 5 1 gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and hydrogenated (310 molkg−5 H ) −1 gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and hydrogenated (3·10 mol·kg H2 ) 4 1 neutral and alkaline systems. Equilibria resulting in net contribution below 110 mol−4kg are−1 neutral and alkaline systems. Equilibria resulting in net contribution below 1·10 mol·kg are not not shown. shown. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 7 of 9 In paragraph 3 the sentences “Equilibrium (24) $ (25) is shifted to the right, whereas In paragraph 3 the sentences “Equilibrium (24) ↔ (25) is shifted to the right, whereas equilibria (26) $ (27) and (36) $ (37) are shifted to the left. The net contributions of these equilibria (26) ↔ (27) and (36) ↔ (37) are shifted to the left. The net contributions of these equilibria increase with LET and are decreased by the addition of base and H . In the 5 1 equilibria increase with LET and are decreased by the addition of base and H2. In the al- alkaline solution containing 310 molkg H net contribution of these equilibria is less 3 1 −5 −1 kaline solution containing 3·10 mol·kg H2 net contribution of these equilibria is less than than 110 molkg , whereas the right shifts of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) −3 −1 obtained for this system are highly increased. The net contribution of right-shifted equi- 1·10 mol·kg , whereas the right shifts of equilibria (40) ↔ (41) and (38) ↔ (39) obtained librium (42) $ (43) is almost independent of the composition of the solution and more for this system are highly increased. The net contribution of right-shifted equilibrium (42) meaningful in the systems irradiated by fast neutrons.” should be changed to “Equilibria ↔ (43) is almost independent of the composition of the solution and more meaningful in (24) $ (25), (26) $ (27), (28) $ (29), (36) $ (37), (38) $ (39) (40) $ (41), are shifted to the systems irradiated by fast neutrons.” should be changed to “Equilibria (24) ↔ (25), the left, whereas equilibria (34) $ (35), (42) $ (43) are shifted to the right. The shift of (26) ↔ (27), (28) ↔ (29), (36) ↔ (37), (38) ↔ (39) (40) ↔ (41), are shifted to the left, whereas equilibrium (42) $ (43) towards reaction (43) is almost independent of the composition equilibria (34) ↔ (35), (42) ↔ (43) are shifted to the right. The shift of equilibrium (42) ↔ of solution and more meaningful in the systems irradiated by fast neutrons. Net contribu- tions of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) are highly enlarged in the alkaline solution (43) towards reaction (43) is almost independent of the composition of solution and more 5 1 – containing 310 molkg H . The increased production of e and H enhances the 2 aq meaningful in the systems irradiated by fast neutrons. Net contributions of equilibria (40) reducing conditions”. −5 ↔ (41) and (38) ↔ (39) are highly enlarged in the alkaline solution containing 3·10 In paragraph 5 line 6 the sentence “This is a consequence of significant right shifts −1 •– • mol·kg H2. The increased production of eaq and H enhances the reducing conditions”. of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) (Figure 6).” should be changed to “This is a In the original publication, there was a mistake in Scheme 3 as published. The correct consequence of significant left shifts of equilibria (40) $ (41) and (38) $ (39) (Figure 6).” In the original publication, there was a mistake in Scheme 3 as published. The correct Scheme 3 appears below: Scheme 3 appears below: (a) gamma—radiation (b) fast neutron—radiation Scheme 3. Graphical presentation of importance of reactions from Table 2. The integrated contribu- Scheme 3. Graphical presentation of importance of reactions from Table 2. The integrated contribu- tions R were classified into categories I, II, and III, defined in the text above the scheme. Colours tions R were classified into categories I, II, and III, defined in the text above the scheme. Colours cor- 5 1 −5 −1 correspond to neutral water (orange), alkaline solution (green), and hydrogenated (3·10 mol·kg respond to neutral water (orange), alkaline solution (green), and hydrogenated (310 molkg H ) 1 −1 H2) syst systems: ems: neutral neutral (viol (violet) and et) a alkaline nd alkaline (yellow). (yeBased llow).on Ba the sed simulation on the sifor mu1 lation for 1 kG kGys . y·s . 8. Changes in Section 4.2 Key Reactions Contributing to Production of Oxidants 8. Changes in Section 4.2 Key Reactions Contributing to Production of Oxidants In paragraph 2 line 8–12 the sentences “This net contribution is only relevant for In paragraph 2 line 8–12 the sentences “This net contribution is only relevant for the the gamma radiolysis of alkaline solution. Production P(n) is the most important source of H O in fast neutron radiolysis of neutral water, whereas P(g), R3(g), and R14(g) are gamma radiolysis of alkaline solution. Production P(n) is the most important source of 2 2 comparable. Contribution R14(g) is highly increased by H injection to neutral water but H2O2 in fast neutron radiolysis of neutral water, whereas P(g), R3(g), and R14(g) are com- parable. Contribution R14(g) is highly increased by H2 injection to neutral water but min- imised in the presence of a base.” should be changed to “In the case of the neutral system, the most important source of H2O2 is production P(n) in neutron radiolysis, P(g) in gamma radiolysis, and reaction R3(g) in gamma-irradiated water”. In paragraph 3 line 1–3 the sentence “The enormous increase in R3(g) observed for the alkaline solution and neutral hydrogenated system is balanced by the decay of H2O2 •− • in reaction with the radicals, eaq and OH.” should be changed to “The increase in R3(g) Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 8 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 9 minimised in the presence of a base.” should be changed to “In the case of the neutral system, the most important source of H O is production P(n) in neutron radiolysis, P(g) in 2 2 gamma radiolysis, and reaction R3(g) in gamma-irradiated water”. observed for the alkaline solution and hydrogenated neutral system is balanced by the In paragraph 3 line 1–3 the sentence “The enormous increase in R3(g) observed for the •– • decay of H2O2 in reaction with the radicals, eaq and OH”. alkaline solution and neutral hydrogenated system is balanced by the decay of H O in 2 2 In paragraph 5 the sentences “In neutral and neutrally hydrogenated systems, O2 de- reaction with the radicals, e and OH.” should be changed to “The increase in R3(g) aq • • cays in reaction (13), producing HO2 , which reforms O2 in reaction (19) with OH. The observed for the alkaline solution and hydrogenated neutral system is balanced by the restoration of O2 is less productive in the hydrogenated system, thus diminishing the con- decay of H O in reaction with the radicals, e and OH”. 2 2 aq In paragraph 5 the sentences “In neutral and neutrally hydrogenated systems, O centration of O2 (Figure 5). In the alkaline solution, O2 is produced in reaction (19) but decays in reaction (13), producing •− HO , which reforms O in reaction (19) with OH. 2 2 effectively scavenged by eaq in reaction (8). In the alkaline hydrogenated system, R19(g) The restoration of O is less productive in the hydrogenated system, thus diminishing 2 −6 −5 −1 and R19(n) are of the order of 10 and 10 mol·kg , respectively, and the formation of O2 the concentration of O (Figure 5). In the alkaline solution, O is produced in reaction 2 2 is suppressed.” should be changed to “In neutral and hydrogenated neutral systems, O2 (19) but effectively scavenged by e in reaction (8). In the alkaline hydrogenated aq • •– decays in reactions (13) and (8) producing HO 6 2 and5 O2 , which 1 reform O2 in reactions (19) system, R19(g) and R19(n) are of the order of 10 and 10 molkg , respectively, and the and (18) with OH. The contribution of reactions (8) and (18) is significantly increased in formation of O is suppressed.” should be changed to “In neutral and hydrogenated neutral systems, O decays in reactions (13) and (8) producing HO and O , which reform O in the alkaline solution, but the restoration of O2 is less productive. Thus, the net effect is a 2 2 2 2 reactions (19) and (18) with OH. The contribution of reactions (8) and (18) is significantly reduction in the concentration of O2. In the hydrogenated alkaline system, the contribu- increased in the alkaline solution, but the restoration of O is less productive. Thus, the −5 −6 −1 tion of reactions (18) and (19) is of the order of 10 and 10 mol·kg , respectively, and the net effect is a reduction in the concentration of O . In the hydrogenated alkaline system, formation of O2 is suppressed (Figure 5)”. 5 6 1 the contribution of reactions (18) and (19) is of the order of 10 and 10 molkg , In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. The correct respectively, and the formation of O is suppressed (Figure 5)”. Figure 7 ap In the p original ears be publication, low: there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. The correct Figure 7 appears below: Figure 7. Integrated contributions of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of H O 2 2 Figure 7. Integrated contributions of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of H2O2 calculated for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and calculated for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis of neutral water, alkaline solution, and 5 1 hydrogenated (310 molkg H ) neutral and alkaline systems. Integrated production rates are −5 −1 hydrogenated (3·10 mol·kg H2) neutral and alkaline systems. Integrated production rates are rep- represented by P(g) and P(n). Based on the simulation for 1 kGys . −1 resented by P(g) and P(n). Based on the simulation for 1 kGy·s . In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. The correct Figur In t e 8happears e origina below: l publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. The correct Figure 8 appears below: Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 9 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1 9 of 9 Figure 8. Contribution of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of O calculated Figure 8. Contribution of key reactions responsible for the formation and decay of O2 calc 2ulated for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis of for fast neutron (n) and gamma (g) radiolysis ne ofu neutral tral water, water alk , alkaline aline solu solution, tion, and hy and hydr drog ogenated enated −5 −1 −1 5 1 1 (3·10 mol·kg H2) neutral and alkaline systems. Based on the simulation for 1 kGy·s . (310 molkg H ) neutral and alkaline systems. Based on the simulation for 1 kGys . 9. Changes in Section 5 Conclusions 9. Changes in Section 5 Conclusions In paragraph 1 lines 8–9 the sentence “At higher pH the total amount of O , H O 2 2 2 In paragraph 1 lines 8–9 the sentence “At higher pH the total amount of O2, H2O2 is is significantly diminished.” should be changed to “At higher pH and f > 0.3 the total significantly diminished.” should be changed to “At higher pH and fg > 0.3 the total amount of O , H O is noticeably diminished.” 2 2 2 amount of O2, H2O2 is noticeably diminished.” In paragraph 2 line 2 the words “were discussed” should be changed to “was discussed”. In paragraph 2 line 2 the words “were discussed” should be changed to “was dis- cussed”. Reference Reference 1. Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947. [CrossRef] 1. Swiatla-Wojcik, D. A Numerical Simulation of Radiation Chemistry for Controlling the Oxidising Environment in Water- Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 947. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Journal

Applied Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Dec 20, 2022

Keywords: n/a

There are no references for this article.